Rev. William Alberts (click here for a bio) consistently criticizes Evangelicalism in his articles posted on Counterpunch. In his most recent article on Evangelicalism, he draws a distinction between what he sees as real Christianity and that of Evangelicalism (click here for the article). In general, Alberts claims that real Christianity seeks to comfort people and relieve their suffering while Evangelicalism seeks to control.
Now Alberts doesn't so divide the two forms of Christianity so that they have nothing in common. He does acknowledge some Evangelicals attempt to comfort and take care of people. But their offers of comfort and provision is predicated on trying to change unbelievers into their own image.
Now Alberts just doesn't recognize these two forms of Christianity in the people he observes, he also recognizes this to be the case in the Scriptures. But where the Scriptures, especially the Gospels and the Epistles, contradict his view of Christianity, he finds fault them. For example, Alberts cites Luke 4:18-19 in showing how Jesus was there to heal and bring justice to the oppressed. Then he refers to the Great Commission in Mathew 28:16-20 where Jesus tells us to go into all nations to make disciples of Him. Alberts claims that these passages contradict each other as if one cannot relieve pain and work against oppression while telling people how to live according to what Jesus taught and baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He explains the disparity between the two passages by trying to discredit Matthew's account of the Great Commission by saying that belief in the trinity didn't come until the 4th century CE (or AD) and thus the reference to baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit must have been added to the Gospel of Matthew centuries later.
Alberts also contrasts what the Jews expected the Messiah to do, which is that he would liberate their nation and bring peace on earth, vs the Evangelical view of Jesus. In addition, Alberts mentions how though it was Pilate who decided to crucify Jesus, that crucifixion became the grounds for anti-semitism.
Alberts concludes that the Evangelical message took hold in the Church because in 380 CE, Christianity became the state religion and the only legal one. And thus we have a context for the forced conformity that is so much a part of the Evangelical gospel according to Alberts. As a result, we have Albert's Gospel that shows empathy vs the evangelism of religiously conservative Christianity. Alberts adds to that some of the atrocities that were committed in the name of Christianity by Christians.
Though it wouldn't be too difficult to show that what the Church Councils stated in a more systematic way about the Trinity is mentioned in bits and pieces throughout the Gospels, the real heart of Alberts's disagreement with Evangelicalism is that the Gospel according to Evangelicals require that people change. They are to change by repenting of sin, by trying to stop sinning as much as possible. This message too is planted throughout the Gospels. In contrast, Alberts sees a lack of empathy and compassion when Evangelicals call on or try to force others to change by repenting from their sins.
One way the Gospel's call to change is throughout the Gospels is found in the Gospel's call to be merciful. For the Gospel's call to be merciful is based on the forgiveness of our own sins. This is apparent in the parable of the two men praying (click here for Luke 18:9-14) and in the parable of the unforgiving servant (click here for Matthew 18:21-35). In the first parable, the way to be justified before God is found in the confessing of sins and the begging for mercy. To not admit to sin causes one to look down on others and not be shown mercy. In the second parable, how much we are forgive others is tied to how much we are aware that we have been forgiven. The need for forgiveness is predicated on the sinfulness of the person.
Furthermore, on more than one occasion doesn't Jesus tell a person to go and sin no more? Doesn't Jesus tell us that to follow Him, we must pick up our cross? Doesn't the fact that He died on the cross as a sacrifice for our sins show that the Gospel calls us to repent and change. And the change that the Gospel calls for is a drastic one because of our sinfulness. Though here we should quickly note that while living on this earthy, we will never come close to changing as much as we should.
The core of Alberts's grievance with Evangelicalism is that Evangelism teaches us about our need to change because of how sinful we are. And yet, like Vlad Lenin when he called religion the 'opiate of the people,' there is some truth to Alberts's concerns. And that truth starts with an event that Alberts mentions in is article: when Christianity became a state religion.
Whereas before Christianity becoming a state religion, what Jesus said about moving on when people don't want to hear the Gospel had no counter arguments. But once Christianity became the religion of a state, more and more Christians have felt the need to try to compel people to change and live like them. Once Christians embrace Christian nationalism, then Israel becomes their model of thought when reacting to unbelievers rather than the New Testament Church.
The bad news is that when Christianity replaced paganism in the Roman Empire, Christian nationalism was born. And with the emergence of Christian nationalism comes the unnecessary dichotomy between empathy and evangelism that Alberts correctly observes in some, perhaps many, Evangelicals. And Christian nationalism plagues us today because it compels too many of us to force people to change rather than letting God's Spirit change those whom He will.
It is tragic that Alberts tries to resolve the perceived disparity between empathy and evangelism which he perceives in the Scriptures by attacking the authenticity of the Scriptures. But what is also tragic is that we Christians have, in order to meet the requirements of Christian nationalism, acted so that people like Alberts can observe two kinds of Christianity where the one kind shows empathy and opposes oppression while the other kind has people looking for those whom they can control. To the extent that we Christians have acted in the latter way is to the extent where people correctly observe a lack of real empathy in Evangelicalism.
References
- https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/09/07/christianity-empathy-versus-evangelism/
- https://lgbtqreligiousarchives.org/profiles/william-alberts
No comments:
Post a Comment